SR-0 (8)
~ . r. <.
e
tit
PL:JL:lk
Council ~tc: hugust~, 1983
Santa Monica, Californ~a
TO: Mayor anc City Counc~l
FRO!l:: Cl. ty Staff
SCEJ~CT: Appeal, !nter~m Developrnen~ Pernl~t No. 1'6, 2222 Lincoln
Bo~levard, C4, Mini-Mart and Reta~~ Store, T. W. Layman.
Introduct~on
T~is is an appeal from the Plann~ng Comm~ssion denial of an &pplication
for an.lnter~ Development Permit for construction of a convenience
market at the northwest corner of Strand and Ll.ncoln. Appeal is by
the appl~cant.
Background
--
The cppll.cant propcses to construct a 3,2~~ sq.ft. cornrnercl.al bUl.ld-
~ng ccr.taining a convenl.ence marke~ and re~a~l store at the nortn~est
corner of Strand and Ll.ncoln l.n the C4 Dl.strl.ct. The proposed
str~ct~~e meets both the current zc~~n~ re~~l.reme~ts anc those
~~~~ssec ~~ p.esol~~~oL Ko. 6385 =cr t~e a=ea c: ~l~col~ Boulevarc
sc~th 0: ~he Free~cY. ~he parKlng a~d access~ays were approvec by
the Traff~c Engl.neer. Follow~ng p~bl~c h~ar~ng on Hay 16, 1983,
a~ '~~ch the application was opposed by several ne~ghbors, the
Planning Comrn~ssion unan~mously den~ec the appl~cat~cn on the grounas
ttat it ~ould preJudice the C~ty's ab~l~ty to aoopt a ~ev~sed land
~5c ~.e~e~~. Tne a?pl~cant has appealec ~h~s determl.nat~on.
Since the Plannl.ng Commission meeting of May 16, the appl~cant has
met wl.th residents of the neighborhood and has indl.cated to staff
t::a ~ they have cEYElopec. a l.::..st 0: uses d:;.ch by Iriut..:al asreer:lent
. -
50
e
e
:.:c.:"cr
-...~
~.........
C1.ty Counc1.l
-2-
August 9, 1ge3
:~:: not ~e ~nc:u6ec l.n th1.S project as ~t 1.S leased because of the
?o~ential negat1.ve effects or. the neighborhood.
(Exh1.b~t A)
c:. -::," Co<.:nc:.l Author~ 'tJ'
~~ce= the provis1.ons of Sect1.0n 6 of Orc1.nance No. 1251 (CCS) the
C1.ty Counc1.1 may aff1.rm, reverse or mod1.fy any determination of
the Plann1.ng CO~;1.ssio~ in regard to an Interim Development Permit
anc the dec1.s1.on of the C1.ty Counc1.l shall be final. In approving
-.....
~.
application the COMrn1.ssion or Council must find that:
~
~ .
~~!e Develc?~e~t 1.S cor.S1.stent w1.th the f1.nd~ngs and
c: Orc1.~ar.ce Kc. 1251(CCS).
-:Jt:r-::>ose
2. ~he pro?osec plans comply ~1.th exist1.ng regulat1.ons conta~nec
~~e :~~:.c~?a: Coce excep~ as noted.
~ ~~e e~~5t~~s an6/c= ~rc?~se~ =~S~~E-of-~a~. ~c= no~h
?~ces~r~a~ a~c.autcmob~le tr~:::.c ~1.1l.b: ac~q~a~e~c acco~~ocate
tr.e a~t~c:.patec res~~~s 0: tne prcposec ceve~o?ne~~ l.nc:uc~ns off-
5~~ee~ p~rkl~g :acil~t~e5 a~c access there~o.
~. The eX1.st~ng and/or proposed publ~c and/or pr1.vate health
a~c Sc:e~y fac~lities (incl~dinq, but net linitec to, 5cr.itation,
5-s~.~e:-s I St.C'~ c~c.1.~.:.s, :1.!'e ;:=ct.ec~:.c:-" c.e~\-:.ces, ;;.=ctect~"\"e sen.~ce5,
~~~ ~J~:lC ~~l:ltlc5l ~~:: oe ace~~at€ ~o accoIT~odat€ t~e ant1.C1.-
patec results of the proposed development.
5, ~~e proposed development w~ll not ?~ejuc1.ce the ab~l1.ty of
~~e C~ty to acopt a rev~sec land use element.
:~e =eco~~encat~ons presentee ~n th~5 report do not have a budget/
=~~a~Clal ~mpact.
: :=::-_--E::-c.E.~:.c:-+
!~ l: res?ectfully reco~~encec that this appeal be den~ed without
pre)UClCe a~d returned to the Plann1.ng Corr~1.SS1.0n for reconsideration.
?-=---=......c-
---::----'---
-,'IiI" .
"-".
:\~ark 7~ga~, t~rec~or, COr:l!7".:m:L ty & ECO:-JO~lC Develop~~lent
Jar.leE Lunsforc, D~rector, Flann1.ng and Zon~ng
Attachment: Letter from Developer's Attorney
1
e(
e(
PORT ANOV A A.."'"ID PENSIG
A LAW CORPORATION
"VICTOR R PORT.A.NOV A
PAUL A. PENSlG
PAULH LIBts
9460 W ~I ,,", H' "<E BOUl..EV ARD. SUITE :120
BEVERLY }nT ,T ..!OJ. C.A T,~RNIA 9021.2
(213) 273-5691
-
ROBERT A. tJH.L
OF OOL~SEL
September 26, 1983
Carole Waldrop
Planning & Zoning
Suite 212 - Santa
1685 Ma~n Street
Santa Monica, CA
Division
Monica City Hall
90401
Re: Proposed Development -
La Mancha Development Properties, Ltd. ("La Mancha") -
N.W.C. Lincoln and Strand (the "Project")
Dear Ms. Waldrop:
ThIS will confirm that La Mancha, through its representatIves,
has met with the Seventh and Strand Ne~qborhood Association (th~
"Association") with respect to the Project and that the
AssociatIon supports the Project in Its configuration as
subm1tted (i.e. wIth parking 1n front) subject to the terms and
conditions set forth below. It is my understanding that the
Association was sponsored by Ocean Park Community Organization.
The following uses will not be part of the project:
1. Liquor sales;
2. 24 hour stores or stores which are open during late
night hours;
3. Dry cleaning plants (as opposed to "pick-up" stores
with the plant off the premises) ;
4. Uses generating offensive noise or fumes;
5. Manufacturing businessesi
6. Automotive or motorcycle uses (e.g. gas stations,auto
or motorcycle parts stores);
LamL&SCW.29
.l
.L
Carole Waldrop
- 2 -
September 26, 1983
7. Restaurants which are primarily take-out (e.g. a
"Colonel Sanders" or "Swensens.).
The following uses should be encouraged by La Mancha:
1. Professional offices:
2. A bicycle shop;
3. Small retail with regular business hours:
4. Branch financial institution:
5. An ethnic restaurant or ba~ery.
La Mancha should agree to the follow~ng:
1. TO pay (or have the tenants of the project pay) for
ten years for the electricity for "goose-neck" type
lamps hung from the electrical poles on Strand between
LIncoln Boulevard and Slxth Street. La Mancha would
arrange f8r the ~~5~allatlo~ 0= s~ch la-?s at no cost
to either the neighborhood or the city.
2. ~o encourage the City to earmark development fees
arising from the Project for neighborhood uses.
A self-explanatory letter to Stanley Scholl, Director of General
Services, concerning the "goose-neck" lamps is enclosed.
The Associatlon agrees with La Mancha that parking in the front
is preferable to parking in the rear becuase parking in the
front creates a "noise-buffer" for the neighborhood and also
because parking in the rear is simply a breeding place for
crime.
Last of all, the Association agrees with La Mancha that the San
Francisco based consultantls suggestion that pedestrian traffic
would result on LinCOln Boulevard from parking in the rear is
unrealistic. Lincoln Boulevard is a state highway and by virtue
of the heavy vehicular load will always be unattractive to
pedestrians.
Please include this letter in your submission to the City
Council. I have asked the Association to independently ver ify
the statements contained herein in writing.
LamL&SCW.29
, .
.l
.<
Carole Waldrop
- 3 -
September 26, 1983
If I can assist you in any fashion please do not hesi tate to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
Portanova & pensig,
A Law Corporation
-, /' ,.-"7 __ ,,:
By / - <--- -':--./
Paul A. pensig
c~
PAP:Jlr
cc: Geoffrey GIlbert Hammerling
LamL&SCW.29
~ ...
r
t-
f
. .
e(
e('
.PORT ANOV A AND PENSIG
A LAW CORPORATION
VICTOR ~ PORT A.......OV A
PAUL A PE.....SIG
PAUL H T .TRT!Ol.
9460 W" ..cl.H I HE BOULEV.&RD. 8\JJ.....-.IIl 520
BEVERLY R'TT .T .!OI, (" A T .TIil'()RNIA 8081.1:
liU.3) 5t'78-5e91
ROBERT A \.J.tU..
OF OOUN8EL
August 9, 1983
Stanley Scholl
Director of General Services
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Development N.W.C.
Lincoln and Strand
Dear Mr. Scholl:
This will confirm our conversation of August 8, 1983 as follows:
,:
~~ L_ ~
~
~
o
u
l. My client, La Mancha Development Properties, Ltd. (-La
Mancha-), is interested ln developlng the above noted
property (the .Property.);
2. .One of ~he matters dis~ussed with a neighborho?d group as
aO>condition -of its" concurrence with such development was "-
the llghtlng of Strand Street from Lincoln Boulevard to
Sixth Street.
3. La Mancha had been advised by Southern California Edison
that it would hang -gooseneck" street lamps from its
pOles which are approximately six in number (and all of
which abut city streets) if an agreement could be reached
with the city by La Mancha as to the period of time
during which La Mancha or any successor owner of the
Property would be responsible for the cost of
electricity.
4. You stated to me that you would recommend that the city
approve of such gooseneck lamps if the owner of the
Property would pay for electricity for ten (10) years.
5. I believe that the foregoing is acceptable to La Mancha
and upon its approval will notify you. In order to
J
LamLSMSS.29
...
.
[..--
, ..
(-:
e
(:
.
...
.
~
Stanley Scholl
- 2 -
August 9, 1983
secure the promise to pay for the electricity, you and I
agreed that a covenant binding the owner of the Property
to pay for the electricity would need to be prepared and
recorded as a lien against the Property.
If the foregoing is not accurate in any regard please advise me in
writing as soon as po~ble.
I will be out of town from August 11 through August 21 but will be
in continuous contact with my office.
Very truly yours,
Portanova & Pensig,
A Law Corporation
, '
{
By c: /--
Paul A. Pensig
J
-J
~iJ -- - -:7_
--
-I
PAP;cad
Enclosures
...... --;J-
cc: Geoff Gilbert-Bamrnerllng
Sam Bachner
Robert Champion.!"'" ,~
Linnard Lane
Torn Layman
.- -* "u
~~ ~ .,;.- _/1'